profits | Vox Indie

MacKeeper Software Ads Blanket Pirate Websites, Providing Profits to Thieves

Over the past months, as I’ve journeyed across the web investigating pirate websites I found that many shared something in common (besides stealing content to profit off the work of others). Along with illegal downloads to popular movies, often times the sites deliver pop-up ads for MacKeeper software, a product of Silicon Valley based Zeobit.

Ads and piracy go hand in hand. It’s how pirate sites make money. Ads appearing on such sites run the gamut from Progressive Car Insurance to online sex chat, but more often that not it seems, I’m greeted by an advertisement for MacKeeper.

MacKeeper ad pops up on an illegal download.

Had these ads been an isolated incident, it wouldn’t bother me. Unfortunately as far as MacKeeper goes, it’s not limited to an ad or two here and there. In fact, if you were to asking me the most common advertisement that pops up to fill my computer screen via pirate downloads, it’s MacKeeper. Below are just a few examples that I’ve recently come across after clicking an illegal download link that I was investigating.

MacKeeper’s advertising methods have generated controversy in the past, not because of the fact the company seems happy to partner with pirates, but because of their ubiquity. According to a story published on Cult of Mac, the software itself isn’t particularly popular among Mac aficionados for this reason. The company’s PR director Jeremiah Fowler explained their approach to advertising to the Cult of Mac’s Leander Kahney this way:

Legitimate Mac Users who are annoyed or tired of our advertising campaigns or partner’s campaigns. Do we advertise? Yes! Do we advertise aggressively, I would not like to use that term but we do have a massive advertising presence online! [emphasis added] We have had 15,000,000 downloads of MacKeeper and have a less than 3% refund rate. The reality is that many people are truly happy with the product even if they hate the advertising (and unfortunately some do). The bad part is some people take their hatred for advertising to a level where they dedicate hours of their lives to making MacKeeper a “Forum Punching Bag”… In a perfect world there would be no advertisements on radio, TV, billboards or the internet, but this is not a reality. As long as there are ads, there will be people who hate them.

We believe that we have a great product and we want people to know about it and the only way to do this is to explore every medium of advertisement. [emphasis added] It is like investing everything in to a great restaurant and hiring the best chefs, buying the best food only to hide the location somewhere in the woods and then tell no one about it. Then wondering why no one comes to your restaurant? We are discussing phasing out our ads and trying to please the vocal minority, but we realize that pleasing everyone is impossible.

It’s not the ads or the product that I mind, it’s where their ads appear. Given the fact the MacKeeper ads pop-up more often than not on pirate downloads, I think it’s safe to generalize and say they must send a great deal of money the pirates way. As Mr. Fowler made clear in his conversation with Cult of Mac, the company views its advertising methods as good business. Never mind, it seems, who they are doing business with.

I attempted to reac Zeobit for comment, but as is usually the case with Silicon Valley tech companies, transparency is not part of their business plan. (Updated 4-24-13 in blue) Following the publication of this blog post, I did actually receive an email from Jeremiah Fowler (quoted above). His response included the following:

As you know we are a software company and illegal software pirating is one of the biggest threats to our livelihood and that of our entire industry. Software is vulnerable in the very same ways that an artist or musician would be impacted. It is a fact that when no one buys a movie, album or software application, there will be no money to invest in future projects or research and development. You can quote me when I say In straight terms “we do not support illegal downloading and we think that it sucks”.

These pirate websites are actually partnered with major Ad Networks and Media Buying Agencies and not MacKeeper. We purchase only impressions or click units and the Ad / Media companies dictate on what websites where they will appear and how often they appear on millions of basically nameless websites across their network. The only reason you personally see so many of our ads is because we buy ads that target only your operating system and nothing more. These guys can only filter ads between Mac or PC and very little else. We advertise on a relatively large scale with the biggest networks to make sure that people actually do buy our software and we do not partner with these sites where people will not buy anything anyway because the whole reason they are on that particular site is to steal. It is a total waste of money for our ads to even be displayed on these channels, but that is also why you see ads for insurance and other random things because these companies just have millions of sites in their network and throw ads based on purchased space or clicks. The flaw is in the terms and conditions of what type of sites these ad networks will allow for the delivery or their customer’s ads. As far as being against illegal downloading we are actually on the same team.

While I understand full well that MacKeeper is a software company and that software is as vulnerable to piracy as are other forms of digital content, I find little satisfaction in his explanation as to why the ads so often pop-up on pirate websites. I in fact do use a Mac and ironically actually OWN the MacKeeper software. I’m well aware that today’s browsers can identify one’s operating system (as well as one’s web history), otherwise it’s likely I would see ads for their PC product.

However, the fact that browsers are smart and “Ad Networks and Media Buying Agencies” partner with these sites, does not absolve Zeobit (or any advertiser) from responsibility in when it comes to the issue of brand-supported piracy. It’s easy to blame the messenger, but why aren’t these companies demanding more oversight on behalf of ad servers? Certainly Zeobit is not the first company to employ the “we can’t control where our ads appear” excuse. I’m asking why not?

As I told Mr. Fowler in my response to him, when companies advertise in print publications, they are acutely aware of where their ads are placed and what editorial content appears next to them. When it comes to the internet, however, these same companies seem content to participate in an online free-for-all where the goal of saturating web visitors with ads for their products–no matter what site the ads are linked to. I must point out one obvious exception to this–somehow these ad servers do avoid porn sites, so their must be some vetting/filtering going on at some level. Why can’t this happen for sites that are engaged in promoting (illegal) downloading? If companies that pay for advertising are against online piracy, why not withhold their business from ad servers that do “partner” with such sites?

Ironically, the company touts its belief in “social responsibility” on its website’s front page. It seems that their view of “social responsibility” does not extend to creator’s rights. It’s shameful that the company doesn’t take action to prevent their ads from subsidizing what is, essentially, illegal activity.

For the record, Zeobit receives an A- on the Better Business Bureau’s review website. From my perspective, the company should receive an F when it comes advertising accountability. Per usual, profits trump ethics.

Netflix Ads + Google Blogspot + Stolen Movies = Piracy Profits

As the Annenberg Innovation Lab releases its February “Ad Transparency Report” on major brands link to advertising on pirates sites it’s also worth taking a look (again) at yet another recent example as to how Google–along with Netflix in this case–continues to incentivize, and monetize, online piracy.

Google-hosted site features ads for Netflix and active (free) download links for a popular movie.

This is a Google-hosted website (via their Blogger platform) that features (as of yesterday) active download links to the Hollywood hit “The Dark Knight Rises.” Note the (Google-served) advertising to the right. At the top of the list is an ad for Netflix. Now, I’ve asked this before and I’ll ask it again….Why go to Netflix and pay to watch the movie when you can click a download link and watch it for free?

Remember, Google is earning money, Netflix is gaining customers (earning money) and the Blogger pirate is earning money. The film’s distributor, Warner Brothers, earns nothing. Sure, the studio is part of “big” Hollywood, but please remember–big Hollywood employs hundreds of thousands of “little” people who toil behind the scenes. These grips, gaffers, caterers, drivers, makeup artists, script supervisors, carpenters, etc. depend on these Hollywood-generated jobs to put food on the table. This is not a victimless crime.

There is no reason on earth that Google (and Netflix) can’t do a better job vetting websites where their advertising appears. Profits for both are soaring. Rather than hire additional staff to deal with these issues, it appears both companies are happy with apparently profitable, yet shameful, status quo.

Profits for Google and Netflix are robust.

Despite lip-service to the contrary, neither company seems willing to take voluntary action for fear that it could impact their bottom line. So what’s left? As Dennis Kneale of Fox Business wrote in his piece today:

The report deploys a new weapon in the assault on online piracy: public shame. The USC Annenberg lab’s director, Jonathan Taplin, hopes that publicly identifying the offending ad-nets will persuade them to block pirate sites entirely.

Ad supported piracy is nothing new, but finally the public is starting to pay attention. Shame on Google and shame on Netflix and all the other established companies that continue to look the other way.

Nickel and Dimed to Death? Pirates Profit off DMCA Requests

If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Most cyberlocker websites that offer file storage, do (eventually) respond to DMCA takedown notices, but in an ironic final twist, a fair number of them have found a way to use copyright violation notifications to their advantage–monetizing requests via pop-up ads.

Examples are easy to find. Today I went to a notorious download site that offers download/streaming links to any number of popular (recent) films. I chose to find links for the Oscar-nominated “Silver Linings Playbook.” If you look at the column on the left, you’ll see more than 2 dozen links to view and/or download the film. I did not check them all, and imagine some have already been removed by studio anti-piracy efforts.

For purposes of this piece, I chose a link hosted on a site called “Faststream.in” When I clicked the link I arrived at a splash page that offered a stream of the film. I could click the button “proceed to video” be bombarded with ads before watching the film. However, what happens when the rights holder wants to send a DMCA notice to the site? On this site there’s no DMCA option provided, only a “contact” link. Click that and (cha-ching) a pop-up ad appears. To access the actual contact page, you have to close the ad.

I’ve come across many sites that utilize the same setup. I suppose that if a site is going to lose its carrot to attract ad clicks, operators may as well make some money in the process. Aside from earning cash from clicks, this cumbersome procedure also makes sending a legit DMCA notice a time-consuming, and thus expensive, proposition. I checked the U.S. Copyright Office list of designated agents to determine if this site had registered one. No listing was found, so using this contact page–for each and every takedown request– appears to be the only way to contact the site to send a takedown notice. No wonder the movie is still online.

I checked the WHOIS information to see if their was any contact information and found that the domain was registered by a Jeremiah Haselberg of PiratePoint.Ltd. in Canada. At least he’s honest about the nature of his entrepreneurial activities eh? Or maybe he’s just named his company after a favored vacation spot, Pirates Point Resort in the Caymen Islands….a “safe harbor” in more ways than one.

Aside from making money off DMCA takedown requests, this site is follows the traditional cyberlocker pirate business model, incentivizing infringing uploads with cash rewards.

It’s bad enough that rights holders have to police these sites to safeguard their work, but adding to their coffers in the process only adds insult to injury. Such is the nature of online piracy today.

Chronic, Ill-Gotten Gains–Google’s Web of Piracy Profit

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

— Sir Walter Scott

Surprise, surprise–Google announced today that its profits “surged” this quarter thanks to an increase in online advertising revenue. A company press release heralded the report:

We ended 2012 with a strong quarter,” said Larry Page, CEO of Google. “Revenues were up 36% year-on-year, and 8% quarter-on-quarter. And we hit $50 billion in revenues for the first time last year – not a bad achievement in just a decade and a half. In today’s multi-screen world we face tremendous opportunities as a technology company focused on user benefit. It’s an incredibly exciting time to be at Google.”

The company’s stock price jumped nearly 5% on the news. So, while Google executives and its shareholders are happy, one has to ask–how much of that “revenue” continues to come from not-so-ethical sources? I hate to sound like a broken record, but until Google gets its act together, I will continue to point out its duplicity with regard to online piracy and its ad revenue.

In the wake of this bullish news from Google I thought I’d point out a recent case study that demonstrates the myriad of ways Google supports (and profits from) piracy. This particular pirate movie website (shown below) is hosted on Google’s free “Blogger” platform. As with most other posts on the site, this one (published 1-18-13) features an embedded movie (a complete version of the indie film David’s Birthday) hosted via Google’s YouTube. The advertising above, and to the right of the embedded film, is served up by Google’s AdSense. Oh, and I found this site using Google’s search engine.

This Google-hosted blog features pirated films hosted on YouTube as well as AdSense advertising.

What makes this situation particularly troubling is that this blog had already been reported to Google (via their DMCA system) in December of 2012.

After receiving a takedown notice from Google the site’s owner posted a response, saying that he was considering closing it.

Blogger site owner received this notice from Google. Despite the warning and repeated violations of Blogger “Terms of Use” the site remains online.

He apparently had a change of heart, and within a few days, resumed posting (infringing) content on his site –including (ironically) the aforementioned “David’s Birthday” despite its having been cited in the December DMCA notice. This time, instead of posting infringing download links, he’s chosen to embed movies streamed via YouTube, each coupled with AdSense ads.

So, despite having been reported for multiple infringing links, the site remains up and running. In the meantime, Google appears to be in no hurry to take it offline. Don’t they have an obligation to remove the site? The language in Blogger’s Terms of Service outlining their “content policy” is conveniently vague. When a site violates its policy Google promises to take action “based on the severity of the violation” but it’s not really clear what criteria is used to measure the “severity” of a reported violation.

Blogger’s terms of service

As for the AdSense, its “Terms of Service” seem pretty straightforward. Well, sort of…

Prohibited Uses. You shall not, and shall not authorize or encourage any third party to…

(v) display any Ad(s), Link(s), or Referral Button(s) on any Web page or any Web site that contains any pornographic, hate-related, violent, or illegal content;

6. Termination; Cancellation…Google may investigate any activity that may violate this Agreement. Google may at any time, in its sole discretion, terminate all or part of the Program, terminate this Agreement, or suspend or terminate the participation of any Property in all or part of the Program for any reason.

Since Google seems to have “investigated” this website in response to multiple DMCA notices, why is this AdSense account allowed to remain active? Does the aggrieved party have to file a DMCA with Blogger and with AdSense over and over again? It’s hard to imagine that Google’s copyright “team” isn’t aware these violations. Does Google not have the money to hire staff to follow-up on reported sites to enforce compliance? Is Google complying with U.S. law? What is meant by the caveat “its [Google's] sole discretion?”

Does looking at the actual law clarify matters? According to Title 17 of U.S. Copyright Law, “conditions for eligibility” for “limitations on liability” include:

(i) Conditions for Eligibility.—

(1) Accommodation of technology. — The limitations on liability established by this section shall apply to a service provider only if the service provider —

(A) has adopted and reasonably implemented, and informs subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network of, a policy that provides for the termination in appropriate circumstances of subscribers and account holders of the service provider’s system or network who are repeat infringers; (emphasis added)

How exactly does Google define a “repeat infringer?” They apparently don’t.

In a post published in September of 2011 on its own Public Policy Blog entitled “Making Copyright Work Better Online-A Progress Report,” Google gave itself a pat on the back, asserting that the company had made great strides in discouraging ad-sponsored piracy.

Improving our AdSense anti-piracy review. We have always prohibited the use of our AdSense program on web pages that provide infringing materials, and we routinely terminate publishers who violate our policies. In recent months, we have worked hard to improve our internal enforcement procedures. In April, we were among the first companies to certify compliance in the Interactive Advertising Bureau’s (IAB’s) Quality Assurance Certification program, through which participating advertising companies will take steps to enhance buyer control over the placement and context of advertising and build brand safety. In addition, we have invited rightsholder associations to identify their top priority sites for immediate review, and have acted on those tips when we have received them.

Sounds good right? On paper perhaps, but given the continued and pervasive presence of Google-sponsored advertising on pirate sites throughout the web, the reality is that Google’s public pledge appears to be carefully crafted lip-service designed to obfuscate the facts, rather than a representation of any meaningful progress.

Over the past two and a half years I’ve written extensively about Google’s ongoing link to ad piracy profits. Earlier this month USC’s Annenberg Innovation Lab released a report documenting the fact that search giant is at the head of the pack when it comes to monetizing (and subsidizing) online piracy via its ad networks. The relationship between Google and online piracy seems clear as day.

Yet, in the meantime–Google apparently plays fast and loose with the DMCA’s “safe harbor” provision. Given the fact they have teams of lawyers, one has to assume the company is careful to follow the letter of the law, but certainly not the spirit of it. Did the legislators who crafted the DMCA really intend for the law to enable entities like Google to hide behind the shield of safe harbor, under the guise of “innovation and free expression”–while simultaneously make (lots of) money monetizing stolen content? I doubt it.

Even the advertising industry recognizes that this is a area of concern. In May of last year The Association of National Advertisers (ANA) and the America Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s) issued a statement entitled, “Best Practices to Address Online Piracy and Counterfeiting.” The statement included the following:

(i) All such intermediaries shall use commercially reasonable measures to prevent ads from being placed on such sites;

(ii) All such intermediaries shall have and implement commercially reasonable processes for removing or excluding such sites from their services, and for expeditiously terminating non-compliant ad placements, in response to reasonable and sufficiently detailed complaints or notices from rights holders and advertisers;

(iii) All such intermediaries shall refund or credit the advertiser for the fees, costs and/or value associated with non-compliant ad placements, or provide alternative remediation.

So, back to Google. Would a “reasonable measure” include removing AdSense ads from a site reported for piracy? What about reimbursing the advertiser who paid Google for these “non-compliant” ads and how does the fact Blogger is a Google-hosted site factor in? Should ad services do business with hosts that routinely serve pirated ads? In other words, should Google (AdSense) do business with itself (Blogger) if they are to honor these “best practices?”

My head is spinning. I guess that’s just the way the powers that be at Google like it.

More Evidence Ad Dollars Fuel Web Piracy

I was pleased to read today’s “Advertising Transparency Report” issued by USC’s Annenberg Innovation Lab that documents the flow of ad dollars from legit companies to pirate websites. According to the report:

…many major brands are not aware that they are in fact the key source of funds for the Piracy industry, it is the goal of this “transparency report” to aid in helping these brands steer their ad dollars away from sites that exploit film, TV and music artists for what appears to be criminal gain.

Though I applaud the report’s overall findings that ad dollars incentivize and subsidize online piracy, I question the conclusion that “major brands” were not “aware that they are in fact the key source of funds for the Piracy industry.” As I’ve noted in the past, advertisers are usually extremely careful, and cognizant, about where their advertising appears. Why the sudden lack of concern for their ad placements online?

More than two years ago I was inspired to start the blog, Popup Pirates (www.popuppirates.com), to document this very issue. As an indie filmmaker facing piracy, it didn’t take me long to recognize there was a major link between ad dollars and the growth of online piracy. In the blog I attempted to answer the question “Who Profits from Piracy?” From my introduction:

Online piracy isn’t about altruism, it’s about income. Today’s technology allows web pirates to steal content and monetize that content with a click of a mouse. Meanwhile, “legit” companies encourage and facilitate this theft while also profiting from it (ad service providers, advertisers and payment processors). The time has come for reasonable measures to be taken to discourage this theft. Content creators and consumers will benefit. Only the pirates and those who profit from their theft will lose.

I wrote that in June of 2010. Yet here we are, nearly three years later, and what has changed? Reading the latest news, it appears the answer is, “not much.” According to the LA Times Levi’s was said to surprised by the report’s findings and contacted their ad agency and instructed them to take immediate action to prevent their ads from appear on illegal file-sharing websites. Was Levi’s really surprised–and more important–will other companies finally follow their lead and become vigilant in preventing their ads from appearing on pirate websites? Forgive me if I remain skeptical. The fact that ad dollars fuel online piracy is not news.

Here’s a video I put together based on a presentation I gave at Canadian Music Week’s Global Forum in the spring of 2011. It documents my journey through the labyrinth of online piracy and its undeniable link to advertising revenues. Follow the money…

Some progress has been made since then, most notably, last year’s takedown of Megaupload–the Big Daddy of illegal file sharing. It’s worth noting at this juncture, that Megaupload’s millions were generated in large measure by ad dollars (as well as subscription fees). Numerous copycat websites have sprung up to fill the void left by Megaupload, and they too depend business models sustained by advertising dollars. With the demise of legislative efforts to address this black market, content creators are left with little recourse.

Back in 2010 I attempted to contact advertisers like Netflix and others whose ads were, and still are, ubiquitous on numerous illegal download sites. Most of my efforts were ignored, but on July of 2010, after NPR aired a story about my blog on “All Things Considered” that mentioned Netflix ads; I received an email from Steve Swasey, their VP of Corporate Communications who wrote the following:

Netflix does not tolerate piracy and we do not support pirate sites. We are very clear with our advertising agencies and affiliate partners about this. Sometimes ads slip through and when this happens, we react swiftly and decisively, removing the ad and not paying the site.

Again, that was over two years ago. Yet here’s an example of a Netflix ad (served by Google) on a pirate site I posted on this blog last month. The ad appears alongside an embedded, full stream of a pirated film, “Kyss Mig.” As I said, not much seems to have changed.

We’ll see if this latest report from Annenberg precipitates real change. I did take heart by looking at the results of an unofficial poll that accompanied the LA Times piece asking readers: “Should brands avoid advertising on so-called pirate sites?” As of now, 63% said yes, while 37% said no.

Perhaps there’s reason to hope, that at long last, the balance could shift away from an insidious equation where everyone, except the actual content creators, make money from online theft. When presented with clear and tangible evidence, the public seems to be on the side of creators. Yet in this game, for any real progress to be made, the ball remains squarely in the advertisers’ court.